USCA4 Appeal: 23-4437 Doc: 31 Filed: 11/05/2024 Pg: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-4437
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHAIKIM REYNOLDS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Elizabeth W. Hanes, District Judge. (4:22-cr-00039-EWH-DEM-1)
Submitted: July 29, 2024 Decided: November 5, 2024
Before RUSHING, HEYTENS, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Sicilia C. Englert, LAW OFFICE OF SICILIA C. ENGLERT, LLC, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Jessica D. Aber, United States Attorney, Julie D. Podlesni, Assistant United States Attorney, D. Mack Coleman, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-4437 Doc: 31 Filed: 11/05/2024 Pg: 2 of 5
PER CURIAM:
A federal jury convicted Chaikim Reynolds of Hobbs Act robbery and aiding and
abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1951(a); and brandishing a firearm in furtherance
of a crime of violence and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2,
924(c)(1)(A)(ii). The district court sentenced Reynolds to 156 months’ imprisonment
followed by five years of supervised release. On appeal, Reynolds argues that the district
court erred in denying his motion for a new trial and in applying an enhancement under the
Sentencing Guidelines for causing permanent injury in the course of attempting to avoid
responsibility for the robbery. Finding no error, we affirm.
First, Reynolds asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial.
He contends the jury was confused about what evidence it could consider for his duress
defense, and challenges the district court’s failure to give a supplemental clarifying
instruction after the jury asked a question about the evidence it could consider. With
respect to Reynolds’ claim that the district court erred in denying his motion for a new trial
under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, we review that claim for abuse of discretion.
United States v. Ali, 991 F.3d 561, 570 (4th Cir. 2021). “A court should exercise its
discretion to grant a new trial sparingly, and it should do so only when the evidence weighs
heavily against the verdict.” United States v. Chong Lam, 677 F.3d 190, 203 (4th Cir.
2012) (cleaned up). However, to the extent that Reynolds asserts that the district court
erred in responding to the jury’s question, as Reynolds failed to object to the court’s
response, we review this claim only for plain error. United States v. Gillespie, 27 F.4th
934, 940 (4th Cir. 2022); see also United States v. Perry, 335 F.3d 316, 322 & n.10 (4th
2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4437 Doc: 31 Filed: 11/05/2024 Pg: 3 of 5
Cir. 2003) (reviewing defendant’s challenge to denial of motion for new trial for abuse of
discretion, but noting that any claim that the jury instructions or verdict sheet was erroneous
would be reviewed for plain error because defendant did not challenge them below). Under
the plain error standard, a defendant must demonstrate (1) an error, (2) that is plain, (3) that
affects the defendant’s substantial rights, and (4) that “the error seriously affects the
fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Gillespie, 27 F.4th at 940
(internal quotation marks omitted).
We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Reynolds’
motion for a new trial and did not plainly err in responding to the jury’s question. The
record does not suggest that the jury rendered a verdict inconsistent with the evidence
presented at trial. Furthermore, the district court responded appropriately to the jury
question during deliberation, and the brevity of the deliberation following that response
does not refute the presumption that the jury followed the judge’s instructions. See United
States v. Burfoot, 899 F.3d 326, 342 (4th Cir. 2018).
Second, Reynolds contends that the district court erroneously applied a six-level
enhancement pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2B3.1(b)(3)(2) (2023), by
considering his flight from law enforcement six days after the robbery as relevant conduct.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying “a deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). This review entails appellate
consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Id. at
51. In assessing procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the district court properly
calculated the defendant’s advisory Guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to
3 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4437 Doc: 31 Filed: 11/05/2024 Pg: 4 of 5
argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and
sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. at 49-51. “A sentence based on an
improperly calculated Guidelines range is procedurally unreasonable.” United States v.
Shephard, 892 F.3d 666,670 (4th Cir. 2018). “In assessing whether a district court properly
calculated the Guidelines range, including its application of any sentencing enhancements,
[we] review[] the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear
error.” United States v. Pena, 952 F.3d 503, 512 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks
omitted). “[C]lear error exists only when the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left
with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v.
Slager, 912 F.3d 224, 233 (4th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The
government bears the burden of establishing the applicability of a sentencing enhancement
by the preponderance of the evidence.” United States v. Henderson, 88 F.4th 534, 536 (4th
Cir. 2023).
Section § 2B3.1(b)(3)(C) provides for a six-level enhancement when a robbery
victim sustained permanent or life-threatening bodily injury. Conduct that may be
considered in applying this enhancement includes all acts and omissions by the defendant
“that occurred during the commission of the offense of conviction, in preparation for that
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4437 Doc: 31 Filed: 11/05/2024 Pg: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-4437
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHAIKIM REYNOLDS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Elizabeth W. Hanes, District Judge. (4:22-cr-00039-EWH-DEM-1)
Submitted: July 29, 2024 Decided: November 5, 2024
Before RUSHING, HEYTENS, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Sicilia C. Englert, LAW OFFICE OF SICILIA C. ENGLERT, LLC, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Jessica D. Aber, United States Attorney, Julie D. Podlesni, Assistant United States Attorney, D. Mack Coleman, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-4437 Doc: 31 Filed: 11/05/2024 Pg: 2 of 5
PER CURIAM:
A federal jury convicted Chaikim Reynolds of Hobbs Act robbery and aiding and
abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1951(a); and brandishing a firearm in furtherance
of a crime of violence and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2,
924(c)(1)(A)(ii). The district court sentenced Reynolds to 156 months’ imprisonment
followed by five years of supervised release. On appeal, Reynolds argues that the district
court erred in denying his motion for a new trial and in applying an enhancement under the
Sentencing Guidelines for causing permanent injury in the course of attempting to avoid
responsibility for the robbery. Finding no error, we affirm.
First, Reynolds asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial.
He contends the jury was confused about what evidence it could consider for his duress
defense, and challenges the district court’s failure to give a supplemental clarifying
instruction after the jury asked a question about the evidence it could consider. With
respect to Reynolds’ claim that the district court erred in denying his motion for a new trial
under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, we review that claim for abuse of discretion.
United States v. Ali, 991 F.3d 561, 570 (4th Cir. 2021). “A court should exercise its
discretion to grant a new trial sparingly, and it should do so only when the evidence weighs
heavily against the verdict.” United States v. Chong Lam, 677 F.3d 190, 203 (4th Cir.
2012) (cleaned up). However, to the extent that Reynolds asserts that the district court
erred in responding to the jury’s question, as Reynolds failed to object to the court’s
response, we review this claim only for plain error. United States v. Gillespie, 27 F.4th
934, 940 (4th Cir. 2022); see also United States v. Perry, 335 F.3d 316, 322 & n.10 (4th
2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4437 Doc: 31 Filed: 11/05/2024 Pg: 3 of 5
Cir. 2003) (reviewing defendant’s challenge to denial of motion for new trial for abuse of
discretion, but noting that any claim that the jury instructions or verdict sheet was erroneous
would be reviewed for plain error because defendant did not challenge them below). Under
the plain error standard, a defendant must demonstrate (1) an error, (2) that is plain, (3) that
affects the defendant’s substantial rights, and (4) that “the error seriously affects the
fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Gillespie, 27 F.4th at 940
(internal quotation marks omitted).
We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Reynolds’
motion for a new trial and did not plainly err in responding to the jury’s question. The
record does not suggest that the jury rendered a verdict inconsistent with the evidence
presented at trial. Furthermore, the district court responded appropriately to the jury
question during deliberation, and the brevity of the deliberation following that response
does not refute the presumption that the jury followed the judge’s instructions. See United
States v. Burfoot, 899 F.3d 326, 342 (4th Cir. 2018).
Second, Reynolds contends that the district court erroneously applied a six-level
enhancement pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2B3.1(b)(3)(2) (2023), by
considering his flight from law enforcement six days after the robbery as relevant conduct.
We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying “a deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). This review entails appellate
consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. Id. at
51. In assessing procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the district court properly
calculated the defendant’s advisory Guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to
3 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4437 Doc: 31 Filed: 11/05/2024 Pg: 4 of 5
argue for an appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and
sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. at 49-51. “A sentence based on an
improperly calculated Guidelines range is procedurally unreasonable.” United States v.
Shephard, 892 F.3d 666,670 (4th Cir. 2018). “In assessing whether a district court properly
calculated the Guidelines range, including its application of any sentencing enhancements,
[we] review[] the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear
error.” United States v. Pena, 952 F.3d 503, 512 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks
omitted). “[C]lear error exists only when the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left
with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v.
Slager, 912 F.3d 224, 233 (4th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The
government bears the burden of establishing the applicability of a sentencing enhancement
by the preponderance of the evidence.” United States v. Henderson, 88 F.4th 534, 536 (4th
Cir. 2023).
Section § 2B3.1(b)(3)(C) provides for a six-level enhancement when a robbery
victim sustained permanent or life-threatening bodily injury. Conduct that may be
considered in applying this enhancement includes all acts and omissions by the defendant
“that occurred during the commission of the offense of conviction, in preparation for that
offense, or in the course of attempting to avoid detection or responsibility for that offense.”
USSG § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B). Application of the relevant conduct standard “involves
consideration of factual circumstances, such as whether acts or omissions are sufficiently
similar; whether they are sufficiently regular; whether they are sufficiently close in time;
and whether, when one factor is particularly weak or even lacking, another factor
4 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4437 Doc: 31 Filed: 11/05/2024 Pg: 5 of 5
compensates to satisfy the factual requirements of relevant conduct.” United States v.
McVey, 752 F.3d 606, 610 (4th Cir. 2014).
The district court did not clearly err in considering Reynolds’ flight from law
enforcement six days after the armed robbery as relevant conduct. The evidence presented
at trial and sentencing demonstrated that Reynolds was aware that authorities were looking
for him after the robbery, and Reynolds was actively attempting to avoid responsibility for
the robbery at the time of the car crash that resulted in the death of an individual. As such,
the flight was properly considered relevant conduct for application of the six-level
enhancement pursuant to USSG § 2B3.1(b)(3)(C).
Accordingly, we affirm Reynolds’ conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED